Irish Property Market chat II - *read mod note post #1 before posting*

MacronvFrugals

MacronvFrugals wrote: »

Varadkar urges Central Bank to get mortgage lending rules review done 'as soon as possible'



TÁNAISTE LEO VARADKAR has called on the Central Bank to get its review of its mortgage lending rules “as soon as possible”.

Speaking in the Dáil this afternoon, he said the measures were put in place to promote financial stability after the crash and to prevent a future banking crisis.

The rules restrict the amount someone can borrow to 3.5 times their income, though there are exemptions.

Varadkar said he welcomed the review being carried out over this year and into next year, but urged the review to be expedited and completed as soon as possible.


https://www.thejournal.ie/central-bank-mortgage-lending-rules-varadkar-5476293-Jun2021/

Nice. More rapid house price inflation.

hometruths

MacronvFrugals wrote: »

Varadkar urges Central Bank to get mortgage lending rules review done 'as soon as possible'



TÁNAISTE LEO VARADKAR has called on the Central Bank to get its review of its mortgage lending rules “as soon as possible”.

Speaking in the Dáil this afternoon, he said the measures were put in place to promote financial stability after the crash and to prevent a future banking crisis.

The rules restrict the amount someone can borrow to 3.5 times their income, though there are exemptions.

Varadkar said he welcomed the review being carried out over this year and into next year, but urged the review to be expedited and completed as soon as possible.


https://www.thejournal.ie/central-bank-mortgage-lending-rules-varadkar-5476293-Jun2021/

Thats presumably a none too subtle statement backing relaxing the rules. Will the CB bow to political pressure?

drogon.

MacronvFrugals wrote: »

Varadkar urges Central Bank to get mortgage lending rules review done 'as soon as possible'



TÁNAISTE LEO VARADKAR has called on the Central Bank to get its review of its mortgage lending rules “as soon as possible”.

Speaking in the Dáil this afternoon, he said the measures were put in place to promote financial stability after the crash and to prevent a future banking crisis.

The rules restrict the amount someone can borrow to 3.5 times their income, though there are exemptions.

Varadkar said he welcomed the review being carried out over this year and into next year, but urged the review to be expedited and completed as soon as possible.


https://www.thejournal.ie/central-bank-mortgage-lending-rules-varadkar-5476293-Jun2021/

haha.. lets do more to increase house prices as quickly as possible rather than fixing the actual problem.

am_zarathustra

schmittel wrote: »

Thats presumably a none too subtle statement backing relaxing the rules. Will the CB bow to political pressure?

Reckless given the continued lack of supply. Most of the people buying now spent most of their early and mid 20s in the worst recession the country had seen, and now this flagrent pump politics in direct defiance of any sensible understanding of supply and demand. The same people will generally get the pot of houses available, but at even more inflated prices.

It's hardly a surprise this age group will make sure SF are the largest party in the country.

If interest rates increase (inevitable at some point) and you've borrow 4.5 times your income, had 2 kids and the government owns a bit of your house (or whatever dreadful idea DOB) you do not have sustainable debt. Even with the current numbers and the ability to borrow I know people with 40% net pay to debt just linked to their house. Even that is beyond what most financial advisors would be comfortable with without giving them more money

Jmc25

MacronvFrugals wrote: »

Varadkar urges Central Bank to get mortgage lending rules review done 'as soon as possible'



TÁNAISTE LEO VARADKAR has called on the Central Bank to get its review of its mortgage lending rules “as soon as possible”.

Speaking in the Dáil this afternoon, he said the measures were put in place to promote financial stability after the crash and to prevent a future banking crisis.

The rules restrict the amount someone can borrow to 3.5 times their income, though there are exemptions.

Varadkar said he welcomed the review being carried out over this year and into next year, but urged the review to be expedited and completed as soon as possible.


https://www.thejournal.ie/central-bank-mortgage-lending-rules-varadkar-5476293-Jun2021/

This. Is. Madness.

It is almost universally recognised that the CB rules had - up until the pandemic - somewhat kept a lid on things. It was a crude instrument to do so, but in the absence of any willingness from the Government to intervene and cool things down, it worked.

Things had levelled for a couple of years prior to the pandemic as we'd reached peak affordability, given the CB rules. Now, because people have extra cash on top of what the banks are allowed lend them, things are inflating again.

If people are allowed borrow more, they will borrow more and prices will increase and people will just be paying more for what they could already have bought had the rules not changed.

But hey maybe prices will go so mad that they'll finally reach that magic point where developers will be "incentivised" to build more houses.

am_zarathustra

Jmc25 wrote: »

This. Is. Madness.

It is almost universally recognised that the CB rules had - up until the pandemic - somewhat kept a lid on things. It was a crude instrument to do so, but in the absence of any willingness from the Government to intervene and cool things down, it worked.

Things had levelled for a couple of years prior to the pandemic as we'd reached peak affordability, given the CB rules. Now, because people have extra cash on top of what the banks are allowed lend them, things are inflating again.

If people are allowed borrow more, they will borrow more and prices will increase and people will just be paying more for what they could already have bought had the rules not changed.

But hey maybe prices will go so mad that they'll finally reach that magic point where developers will be "incentivised" to build more houses.

I hear more sense on here than I do from any of the cabinet on this topic. You'd wonder do they actually give a damn, suits most of them to have inflated prices. Maybe a serious election loss will focus the minds

TheSheriff

MacronvFrugals wrote: »

Varadkar urges Central Bank to get mortgage lending rules review done 'as soon as possible'



TÁNAISTE LEO VARADKAR has called on the Central Bank to get its review of its mortgage lending rules “as soon as possible”.

Speaking in the Dáil this afternoon, he said the measures were put in place to promote financial stability after the crash and to prevent a future banking crisis.

The rules restrict the amount someone can borrow to 3.5 times their income, though there are exemptions.

Varadkar said he welcomed the review being carried out over this year and into next year, but urged the review to be expedited and completed as soon as possible.


https://www.thejournal.ie/central-bank-mortgage-lending-rules-varadkar-5476293-Jun2021/

I think this is more likely to happen than interest rate rises.

Lots of comments on it of late, this is political pressure from Leo.

It's a terrible idea, but likely to happen IMO

accensi0n

TheSheriff wrote: »

I think this is more likely to happen than interest rate rises.

Lots of comments on it of late, this is political pressure from Leo.

It's a terrible idea, but likely to happen IMO

Be hilarious if the CB then changed it to 3x. :pac:

Hubertj

schmittel wrote: »

Thats presumably a none too subtle statement backing relaxing the rules. Will the CB bow to political pressure?

I don’t think so. I think (Hope?) the CB recognises the variables at play here. Relaxing or changing the rules will not fix the many many many problems with the market.

accensi0n

accensi0n wrote: »

Be hilarious if the CB then changed it to 3x. :pac:

The new central bank governor isn't known for setting conservative lending rules.

Quite the opposite. I wonder why he was chosen by the government?

:Thinking emojii:

enricoh

Builders don't need incentivizing ! There is no one to build extra houses, unless we start bringing in workers from Kazakhstan or somewhere! Young lads don't seem to want o go near the building game unless it's as an electrician or plumber.
House prices to increase with any relaxation of lending rules, less affordable for even more people and more people decide that social housing is the way forward for them!

snow_bunny

drogon. wrote: »

haha.. lets do more to increase house prices as quickly as possible rather than fixing the actual problem.

The inmates are running the asylum. I've seen it all now, no way are they that stupid, they're purposefully pouring fuel on the fire here. If the Central Bank bow down to this it's all over.

Cal4567

The CB have remained steadfast so far. I'd be surprised if they were for turning now.

Varadkar really is a piece of work. Might just be playing up for the bye election, targeting his voting cohort.

am_zarathustra

Deleted User wrote: »

The new central bank governor isn't known for setting conservative lending rules.

Quite the opposite. I wonder why he was chosen by the government?

:Thinking emojii:

God I'd actually forgotten he's from Treasury in NZ. Given the unbelievably obvious bubble emerging there we definitely shouldn't be following in their footsteps

MacronvFrugals

am_zarathustra wrote: »

God I'd actually forgotten he's from Treasury in NZ. Given the unbelievably obvious bubble emerging there we definitely shouldn't be following in their footsteps

Dont forget the ECB and super Mario advised Ireland against hiring Makhlouf


Draghi's concern over new chief of Central Bank

European Central Bank (ECB) Governor Mario Draghi raised concerns over the appointment of the new Central Bank of Ireland governor directly with Finance Minister Paschal Donohoe, the Sunday Independent has learned.

Mr Draghi is understood to have approached Mr Donohoe about the appointment of Gabriel Makhlouf at a recent meeting of EU finance ministers in Brussels.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/draghis-concern-over-new-chief-of-central-bank-38372445.html

Amadan Dubh

Hubertj wrote: »

I don’t think so. I think (Hope?) the CB recognises the variables at play here. Relaxing or changing the rules will not fix the many many many problems with the market.

Yes, I agree. From my own experience with the Central Bank, they are already greatly concerned (likely it was pointed out to them by the European oversight entities and other regulators) about a significant systemic risk posed from leverage in the financial system. In particular, the debt bubble that exists and is fed via the shadow banking sector.

Ireland is the home for securitisation vehicles, with tens of billions worth of debt repackaged in these vehicles. These are unregulated vehicles which facilitate companies taking on more and more debt, which also enable banks to tidy up their balance sheets. Bonds are then issued referencing the performance of the underlying loans and yield hungry investors have already gobbled and continue to gobble them up. The last couple of years the penny seems to have dropped with what has been happening, right under the nose of the CBI and they are fully aware that a risk to the financial system in Ireland and abroad has some of its existence right under their nose! What's more is that it is unclear who the investing entities actually are and the link between the investing entities and the underlying loans is only starting to become apparent - after the horse has bolted.

A good example of what happens is found in the recent Bank of Ireland story where it offloaded 350m of bad loans. These will be repackaged, a bond will be created, given a coupon, a listing and a rating, PIMCO will then take exposure in some way to the bond with whatever vehicles it manages. The regulators of BoI have no more sight on the bad debt as it will end up in an unregulated SPV and the PIMCO fund which is regulated is investing in a bond, not a loan, so the Central Bank has no eyes on the loan from this side.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/financial-services/bank-of-ireland-shares-slide-after-it-offloads-350m-of-non-performing-loans-1.4597198

In this context, and noting the previous reports of the CBI which have stated the link between the mortgage lending restrictions and house prices not further increasing, it is so unlikely they will do anything to increase them.

However, the deposit rule should be removed for certain people. It is very low risk to remove it if you implement something solid in its place like evidence of paying an RTB registered lease to a non-connected party (like a family member) of (mortgage repayment) + (X% of mortgage repayment) for Y months/years.

Edit: it makes more sense to show evidence of being able to afford the 100% mortgage, rather than the 90% mortgage, + a buffer % in order for the bank to grant an up to 100% mortgage on the property. So for borrowing 100% of the cost of a €400k house on a 30 Yr mortgage would be around €1700 monthly repayments. If you're a couple on decent salaries of maybe €120k combined and have been renting at €2k per month you would not be of much risk to the bank, especially as 5% of the value of the house is being paid off each year. Unless I'm oversimplifying?

Edit of the edit: 3.5 times salary cap would also apply to the 100% mortgage so the €120k combined salary couple could not in fact borrow €450k as 100% mortgage (€420k would be their 100% mortgage limit).

yagan

Cal4567 wrote: »

The CB have remained steadfast so far. I'd be surprised if they were for turning now.

Varadkar really is a piece of work. Might just be playing up for the bye election, targeting his voting cohort.

The seems to be the simplest answer. Micheal Martin was doing something similar yesterday talking about selling off the governments stake in BofI. If there was value there it would have been offloaded long ago. Instead dividends remain suspended.

Lumber bubble burst .
Lets see how "inflation" will affect cost of property in Ireland.

Eclectic Econometrics

Amadan Dubh wrote: »

However, the deposit rule should be removed for certain people. It is very low risk to remove it if you implement something solid in its place like evidence of paying an RTB registered lease to a non-connected party (like a family member) of (mortgage repayment) + (X% of mortgage repayment) for Y months/years.

This idea might be of interest to you, Amadan.

https://internationalbanker.com/finance/interest-rates-and-human-rights-reinterpreting-risk-premiums-to-finance-the-green-new-deal-and-the-fight-against-covid-19/

Amadan Dubh

Eclectic Econometrics wrote: »

This idea might be of interest to you, Amadan.

https://internationalbanker.com/finance/interest-rates-and-human-rights-reinterpreting-risk-premiums-to-finance-the-green-new-deal-and-the-fight-against-covid-19/

Good article but I'll need to read it again tomorrow as it's a lot to take in at midnight when I'm in bed!

"Originally Posted by Amadan Dubh View Post

However, the deposit rule should be removed for certain people"

No its cant.Because repossession cant go ahead for family property

We only can go ahead removing all rules when repossession could go ahead once bill not paid.

That is the only way to move ahead housing market but prices will go ahead too.

Leo will never go for it because he will never win elections.

Also doing it you will create the bubble .

Give mortgage to those who saved 50 per cent of property price
And take them property out if they will struglling pay the bill on time
You will have well regulated price and bills paid on time.

Amadan Dubh

[Deleted User] wrote: »

"Originally Posted by Amadan Dubh View Post

However, the deposit rule should be removed for certain people"

No its cant.Because repossession cant go ahead for family property

We only can go ahead removing all rules when repossession could go ahead once bill not paid.

That is the only way to move ahead housing market but prices will go ahead too.

Leo will never go for it because he will never win elections.

Also doing it you will create the bubble .

Give mortgage to those who saved 50 per cent of property price
And take them property out if they will struglling pay the bill on time
You will have well regulated price and bills paid on time.

I would argue that house prices will increase if removing the deposit rule but not by that much and no added leverage risk is really created given the 3.5 times salary cap still applies plus they have demonstrated ability to repay the 100% mortgage.

Amadan Dubh

Amadan Dubh wrote: »

I would argue that house prices will increase if removing the deposit rule but not by that much and no added leverage risk is really created given the 3.5 times salary cap still applies plus they have demonstrated ability to repay the 100% mortgage.

The more you take a mortgage the more bank earn
But on another side the more you pay deposit the more bank are covered
Bank are not interested to be a covered because it covered by government
So the bank are interested to earn more
But as I said number of times before
You will never sell 100 houses 1 million price each
To 80 buyers who can pay a million
And 20 buyers which has 500 000 and nobody will give them 500 000 mortgage
For example I can take 500 000 mortgage for 25 years and pay it in 3 years but nobody interested give me a mortgage because they can not take my house if I will not pay my mortgage.

The main problems which has to be resolved on property market in Ireland

1) Repossession ( we get extra property on market which tax payers has not to be pay for )
2) The buyer of the property should not spend more than 5 days to be a property owner ( for example in most European countries buy-sell process) taking up to 5 days when in Ireland take 6-12 months.
3) Every single family which got social housing must have choice and pay for property 25 years without deposit and be a property owner or reapply for another social housing in 15 years.Look for work and be a owner or keep apply.

Those things will solve housing problem in Ireland very quickly.

Graham

Revolution 1917 wrote: »

Those things will solve housing problem in Ireland very quickly.

Interestingly none of those suggestions include the provision of more actual housing.

FYI, house sales don't typically take 6 - 12 months.

Graham

Graham wrote: »

FYI, house sales don't typically take 6 - 12 months.

From my own and friends experience in Ireland its take from 6 to 12 months.
In Finland from mortgage to be a owner its take 4 days
In Lithuania its take 5 days

Does anybody who bought property in Ireland spent less than 14 days ?
From mortgage approval to be a owner of the property ?

Graham

Revolution 1917 wrote: »

From my own and friends experience in Ireland its take from 6 to 12 months.

I don't doubt you.

That doesn't change the fact that house sales don't typically take 6 - 12 months.

8 - 12 weeks would be typical. New builds obviously depend on the stage of construction when going sale agreed.

Graham

Graham wrote: »

I don't doubt you.

That doesn't change the fact that house sales don't typically take 6 - 12 months.

8 - 12 weeks would be typical. New builds obviously depend on the stage of construction when going sale agreed.

I spent 7 months paying rent before I got keys from solicitor in Dundalk
I spent 5 days to be a owner of the site in Lithuania ( from day I visited the bank and apply to mortgage to day to be a owner )

Graham

Revolution 1917 wrote: »

I spent 7 months paying rent before I got keys from solicitor in Dundalk

That's unlucky, not typical.

cnocbui

Graham wrote: »

That's unlucky, not typical.

I'm trying to sell a property. I'll grant it's more a commercial sale, but even with the buyer having an in with the bank, it took 5 months for the bank to give a verbal nod. I'ts now been 6 months and the bank still haven't sent someone to look at the house for a valuation. I'll be lucky if it doesn't take 9 months all up, if it even goes ahead.

This country is truly dysfunctional, compared to say Australia, where transactions can take only days or a couple weeks.

handlemaster

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/sinn-f%C3%A9in-has-opposed-building-of-6-000-homes-across-dublin-1.4602893?mode=amp

No wonder there are so few new homes been builth when you have a party thats always banging on about free homes opposing their co construction

Hubertj

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I spent 7 months paying rent before I got keys from solicitor in Dundalk
I spent 5 days to be a owner of the site in Lithuania ( from day I visited the bank and apply to mortgage to day to be a owner )

It took me 5 weeks. Why did it take you so long? Was it an old house the the solicitor had difficulty perfecting the title? I’ve only heard of such long delays with new builds or old houses and issues with title.

Villa05

handlemaster wrote:

No wonder there are so few new homes been builth when you have a party thats always banging on about free homes opposing their co construction

Is there not 50k open planning permissions in the system and from the article they appear to be opposed on concerns at the number of private homes on public lands (60%)

Given that the soundings from gov during the week that only social and affordable would be built on public land in Dublin and Cork, does that mean government feel that SF were correct to oppose these developments

All very strange

Hubertj

Hubertj wrote: »

It took me 5 weeks. Why did it take you so long? Was it an old house the the solicitor had difficulty perfecting the title? I’ve only heard of such long delays with new builds or old houses and issues with title.

That's amazing!
The last house I sold was to a cash buyer, no issues and it still took over 3 months from sale agreed!

Hubertj

Villa05 wrote: »

Is there not 50k open planning permissions in the system and from the article they appear to be opposed on concerns at the number of private homes on public lands (60%)

Given that the soundings from gov during the week that only social and affordable would be built on public land in Dublin and Cork, does that mean government feel that SF were correct to oppose these developments

All very strange

It’s irrelevant how many open planning permissions there are when capacity to build is limited. What the article shows it that Sinn Fein and making things worse for political gain.

hometruths

Graham wrote: »

Interestingly none of those suggestions include the provision of more actual housing.

FYI, house sales don't typically take 6 - 12 months.

In fairness number 1 would increase turnover. A higher turnover rate would improve things enormously.

Hubertj

bubblypop wrote: »

That's amazing!
The last house I sold was to a cash buyer, no issues and it still took over 3 months from sale agreed!

I think i was fairly lucky that all went so smoothly. Like you, my friends were around the 3 month mark but 1 had a longer process due to issues with the title. It was an old house that had been in the same family for a long time so the issues were not flagged before.

Villa05

Hubertj wrote:

It’s irrelevant how many open planning permissions there are when capacity to build is limited. What the article shows it that Sinn Fein and making things worse for political gain.

If capacity is limited and there are already sufficient permissions in the system, how are we making things worse by opposing Poor value for money schemes for the taxpayer.

The function of the planning system is to provide sufficient correct housing in appropriate locations.

It should not be a mechanism for land hoarders to increase the value of their lands and sit on it

enricoh

handlemaster wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/sinn-f%C3%A9in-has-opposed-building-of-6-000-homes-across-dublin-1.4602893?mode=amp

No wonder there are so few new homes been builth when you have a party thats always banging on about free homes opposing their co construction

There was a mere 40% of the houses earmarked for social housing, not good enough said sinn Fein! I couldn't see ordinary punters queueing for the other 60% unless it was to lease them back to the council!

Wanderer78

handlemaster wrote:

No wonder there are so few new homes been builth when you have a party thats always banging on about free homes opposing their co construction

What free homes? Sf do not advocate for this, they're trying to wrestle the whole property market away from the monopolsation of the fire sectors

Hubertj

Villa05 wrote: »

If capacity is limited and there are already sufficient permissions in the system, how are we making things worse by opposing Poor value for money schemes for the taxpayer.

The function of the planning system is to provide sufficient correct housing in appropriate locations.

It should not be a mechanism for land hoarders to increase the value of their lands and sit on it

You’ve sidestepped the issue at hand.

SmokyMo

Hubertj wrote: »

You’ve sidestepped the issue at hand.

Did you have a look at those deals?
If I understood correctly, for example the one in fingals would have costs the council over 75 million once said and done. Developer would ve made over 300 million.
If that was the deal then SF are they only ones with common sense it seems.

Then it is a FG report...

Villa05

enricoh wrote:

There was a mere 40% of the houses earmarked for social housing, not good enough said sinn Fein! I couldn't see ordinary punters queueing for the other 60% unless it was to lease them back to the council!

40% comprises of social, cost rental, affordable purchase.

Even private purchasers for the most part get FTB grant and investment funds get tax free status plus "can't loose" long term leases

So everything is subsidised to some extent so by definition social for everyone.

Basically a sign that every development is unaffordable and unsustainable

Villa05

Hubertj wrote:

You’ve sidestepped the issue at hand.

There are so many, which one have I sidestepped?

Bass Reeves

Wanderer78 wrote: »

What free homes? Sf do not advocate for this, they're trying to wrestle the whole property market away from the monopolsation of the fire sectors

No they do not. They want to prevent as many houses as possible being build. Over the last 10 years we have tried to prevent gettoization. This is where you have large proportion of social housing in a development. IMO 40% was a bit high although I taught that there was an affordable element within that. We even moved away from builders building 10-20% if a lesser type house in one corner of the site.

I would not mad about having a crowd of gits next door(however not all people requiring social housing are like that it's a small minority) but I see the advantage in the long run of integration of housing and the long term positive effect it should have on the majority of those buying social and affordable housing. You see this is smaller urban areas where for all the fault of the house purchase scheme's of the 80/90's it kept a lot of families out of gettoization.

SF do not want this to happen as it reduces there longterm potential voter base. It's a cynical play on housing. They want to create more Ballymun's, Moyross's and Knocknaheenie's so they can continue to harvest votes out of these types of getto's

Hubertj

Villa05 wrote: »

There are so many, which one have I sidestepped?

They object to planning and block development for political gain. They “care” about the “people” just as much as all other parties.

Amadan Dubh

ESRI bubble warning in the property market. It's all so familiar at this stage.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/house-prices-in-ireland-could-be-reaching-tipping-point-1.4602628

House prices reached a floor in 2013, the year the economy began its recovery. In the intervening period house prices have risen by 90 per cent, with the severe shortfall in housing supply driving prices back up to 2008 levels, despite wider pandemic challenges.

Given the exceptionally slow response of Ireland’s housing supply, there must be a real concern that house prices will surge here over the next 18 months. Already in the Netherlands they are up by 13 per cent on a year ago, and in the US they are 24 per cent higher. Can Ireland be far behind?

While a tightening of mortgage rules could help calm house price pressures over the next 18 months, this is not the job of the Central Bank: its remit is to protect financial stability. If the Government wants to tackle house price inflation, it needs to seriously ramp up supply, and it should stop throwing petrol on the flames through schemes that put more money in the hands of buyers, only to end up in the pockets of sellers.

Wanderer78

Bass Reeves wrote: »

No they do not. They want to prevent as many houses as possible being build. Over the last 10 years we have tried to prevent gettoization. This is where you have large proportion of social housing in a development. IMO 40% was a bit high although I taught that there was an affordable element within that. We even moved away from builders building 10-20% if a lesser type house in one corner of the site.

I would not mad about having a crowd of gits next door(however not all people requiring social housing are like that it's a small minority) but I see the advantage in the long run of integration of housing and the long term positive effect it should have on the majority of those buying social and affordable housing. You see this is smaller urban areas where for all the fault of the house purchase scheme's of the 80/90's it kept a lot of families out of gettoization.

SF do not want this to happen as it reduces there longterm potential voter base. It's a cynical play on housing. They want to create more Ballymun's, Moyross's and Knocknaheenie's so they can continue to harvest votes out of these types of getto's

jesus christ, what utter bullsh1t, sf realises the ffg model of a fire sector lead economy will continually fail, and it will, particularly in relation to property, as this approach is ultimately about maintaining a trend of continual property and land price inflation

SmokyMo

Hubertj wrote: »

They object to planning and block development for political gain. They “care” about the “people” just as much as all other parties.

https://twitter.com/EOBroin/status/1408334355194339329

MacronvFrugals

The DBS odds have taken a very interesting shift, SF have gone from being 6/1 3 weeks ago to 7/4 today


Geoghan - 5/4
Boylan -7/4


The populist rhetoric from Leo over the last two weeks makes sense now